What is the premonitory urge and how do you work with it?

Published by Unseen Progress, an independent publisher of caregiver research. Last reviewed 2026-05-10. Part of the tic disorders research overview.

Short answer. The premonitory urge is the uncomfortable sensation — often described by children as a buildup, an itch, or a "need" — that precedes a tic and is relieved by performing it. It is the actual target of the habit-reversal component of CBIT, not the tic itself. Children typically begin to reliably notice and describe the urge somewhere between ages eight and ten, which is why CBIT is age-gated to that range (Woods et al., 2008; Leckman, 1993).

What the urge actually is

Leckman and colleagues' early descriptive work characterised the premonitory urge as a focal somatic sensation, located in or near the body part involved in the tic, that builds in intensity until the tic discharges it (Leckman, 1993). Children describe it in surprisingly varied language — "an itch I can't scratch," "pressure that has to come out," "like needing to sneeze," "a buzz." A meaningful minority of children, particularly younger ones, do not report any conscious urge at all; tics in this group are sometimes called "unconscious" tics and respond differently to awareness work.

Two empirical facts about the urge are worth highlighting. First, the urge typically precedes the tic by milliseconds to seconds — long enough, in older children, to be noticed and acted upon. Second, performing the tic temporarily discharges the urge but does not eliminate it; the urge rebuilds, often within seconds, which is why tics repeat in bouts. This rebuild-and-discharge cycle is what habit reversal training exploits.

Why the urge is the target, not the tic

The standard misconception about CBIT is that it teaches children to suppress tics. It does not. The habit-reversal component (Woods et al., 2008) teaches the child to:

1. Notice the urge before the tic fires. 2. Engage a competing response — a voluntary movement physically incompatible with the tic. 3. Hold the competing response for sixty seconds or until the urge fades.

The mechanism here is that the urge, given a competing response to attach to, eventually subsides without ever discharging through the tic. Over many repetitions, the urge–tic association weakens. The child is not holding in a tic; the child is letting the urge go through a different motor pathway.

This is why awareness training must come first in the CBIT protocol. A child who cannot reliably notice the urge cannot apply the competing response on time. Asked to "do the competing response" without first being trained to notice, the child applies it after the tic has already fired, which does nothing for the underlying mechanism.

What awareness training looks like

Awareness training, the first sub-step of habit reversal, is structured noticing work. The Woods/Piacentini manual prescribes several specific techniques:

  • Mirror work. The child watches themselves in a mirror and signals each time they notice the urge or the tic. The therapist confirms or corrects in real time.
  • Video review. Brief recordings of the child are watched together, with the child noting tics and the surrounding sensations.
  • Tic logs. Between sessions, the child (with parent help when needed) keeps simple counts of tics and rated urge intensity, building the habit of noticing.

The therapeutic effect of awareness training, before any competing response is added, is non-trivial: simply learning to notice an automatic behaviour reduces its frequency in many children (Walkup et al., later dissemination work). This is the "awareness-only" effect documented in the habit reversal literature.

What parents are usually told to do — and not to do

Parents are not trained CBIT therapists, and the manual is explicit that the home role is supportive, not directive. Three things matter for the urge specifically.

Do. Acknowledge the urge as real when the child mentions it. "That sounds uncomfortable. Thanks for telling me." Validation reduces the child's tendency to mask the experience, which makes therapy data more useful.

Do not. Ask "are you noticing the urge right now?" repeatedly during the day. Constant urge-checking makes the urge more salient, which paradoxically increases tic frequency for many children. Awareness work is bounded — it happens in structured practice sessions, not at the dinner table.

Do. Cooperate with the therapist's competing-response setup. If the therapist has set a thumb-press competing response for a head-jerk tic, parents can quietly notice and acknowledge when the child uses it; that is the social-support component of habit reversal.

Do not. Reward the child for "fewer tics today." Tic counts vary on their own. A reward contingent on something the child cannot directly control creates frustration when a wax appears and erodes trust in the protocol.

Why CBIT is age-gated

Children younger than seven or eight typically cannot reliably introspect on a sub-second sensation that precedes a motor event. The CBIT manual reflects this: the protocol is generally recommended for children eight and older, with adapted approaches for younger children that emphasise environmental modification and parent training rather than habit reversal proper (Woods et al., 2008; Pringsheim et al., 2019).

This is not a developmental ranking — younger children's tics are not less real or less treatable. It is a recognition that the specific mechanical work of habit reversal requires interoceptive awareness that develops with age.

What the research suggests doing

For a parent of a child in the CBIT-eligible age range:

1. Treat the urge as the primary phenomenon, not the tic. The tic is the visible discharge; the urge is what therapy is actually working on. 2. Do not police urge-noticing outside of structured practice. Constant inquiry makes the urge more salient and unhelpfully amplifies it. 3. Validate the urge as real and uncomfortable when the child reports it. Children who feel the urge has been heard are more reliable reporters in therapy. 4. Trust that awareness-only work is doing something even when no competing response has been added yet. The first weeks of CBIT often produce reduction without any explicit suppression strategy in play.

Related questions

References

  • Leckman, J. F., Walker, D. E., & Cohen, D. J. (1993). Premonitory urges in Tourette's syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(1), 98–102.
  • Woods, D. W., Piacentini, J., Chang, S., Deckersbach, T., Ginsburg, G., Peterson, A., Scahill, L., Walkup, J., & Wilhelm, S. (2008). Managing Tourette Syndrome: A Behavioral Intervention for Children and Adults (Therapist Guide). Oxford University Press.
  • Piacentini, J., Woods, D. W., Scahill, L., et al. (2010). Behavior therapy for children with Tourette disorder: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 303(19), 1929–1937.
  • Pringsheim, T., Okun, M. S., et al. (2019). Practice guideline recommendations summary. Neurology, 92(19), 896–906.

---

Unseen Progress publishes long-form caregiver research and builds research-backed daily trackers for the families covered. See the full tic disorders research overview for the complete framework.